One of the most misunderstood concepts in the EB-1A Extraordinary Ability standard is the second-stage review known as the Final Merits Determination. Many applicants, practitioners, and even adjudicators sometimes conflate the evidentiary criteria with the ultimate legal standard, but the two inquiries are separate and distinct. The regulatory criteria in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) are simply the threshold: they allow the applicant to show eligibility by meeting at least three of the listed categories or by presenting evidence of a one-time major award. This stage is checklist-based and focuses only on whether the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence. It is not the approval stage, and meeting the criteria is not enough.
The Role of the Final Merits Determination
The Final Merits Determination was established through the Kazarian framework and has been consistently applied by USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). After determining that the petitioner meets at least three criteria, USCIS must examine whether the totality of the evidence actually demonstrates that the applicant has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of the field. This second stage requires a holistic analysis that goes far beyond checking the regulatory boxes. The question at this stage is not simply whether an applicant has published papers, won awards, or judged competitions, but rather whether those accomplishments meaningfully and credibly establish that the applicant has risen to the pinnacle of the profession.
Sustained Acclaim Versus Recent Accomplishments
A common misunderstanding is the belief that the achievements must be recent. The EB-1A statute and regulations do not require recency. There is no legal rule that achievements must be from the past year or the past two years to be relevant. However, the Final Merits Determination does require evidence of sustained acclaim. USCIS is not looking for a single year of success that fades away. They are looking for impact and recognition that continue over time. The distinction is critical: the standard is not “recent acclaim,” but “continued significance and influence.” Some adjudications mistakenly frame this issue as one of timing, but the proper legal question is whether the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner’s work still carries value, prestige, authority, or influence in the field. A groundbreaking achievement from several years ago can establish sustained acclaim if there is evidence that it continues to be cited, used, commercialized, covered by media, or recognized by experts. The problem in many denials is not that the accomplishments are old, but that there is no evidence of lasting impact.
The “Not Recent” Issue in Denials
Practitioners occasionally see denial language stating that the achievements were not recent or were too old. Although this wording appears to impose a recency requirement, the real concern is usually evidentiary continuity. If all awards, publications, articles, and roles cluster around a single year and there is no continued recognition or impact, USCIS may conclude that the acclaim was not sustained. This is a Final Merits concern, not a regulatory requirement about the age of the evidence. What adjudicators commonly mean is that the applicant achieved something significant at one point in time but has not demonstrated ongoing visibility or influence. The correct understanding of these denials is that the burden is on the petitioner to show that the record of achievement did not simply peak and disappear.
Final Merits and the Notice of Intent to Deny
One of the most striking patterns practitioners see today is that many USCIS denials and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) do not dispute the regulatory criteria at all. In fact, the agency often explicitly acknowledges that the petitioner has met at least three criteria under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). The NOID will state that although the beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary requirements of the regulation, the petitioner has failed to establish extraordinary ability under the Final Merits Determination. This is the clearest proof that meeting the criteria does not guarantee approval. It is also the clearest example of how USCIS sometimes treats the Final Merits Determination as a separate, higher, and more subjective standard.
In these NOIDs, the officer will often agree that the evidence qualifies under the published criteria: the beneficiary may have demonstrated original contributions, a high salary, media coverage, or experience judging the work of others. The agency’s position, however, is that these accomplishments do not rise to the level of sustained acclaim or do not show the beneficiary is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field. Practitioners are seeing more cases where the NOID begins with a finding that enough criteria have been met, but then shifts the focus to the argument that the acclaim is limited, short-lived, local, or insufficiently distinguished. This trend illustrates how the Final Merits Determination has become the central battleground in EB-1A adjudications.
The problem is not that USCIS is identifying a defect in the criteria stage. Instead, the agency is asserting that the totality of the record fails to establish the ultimate extraordinary ability standard. This is where the government most frequently argues that the evidence lacks continuing significance or does not demonstrate ongoing recognition. Often the critique is framed in terms of timing, using phrases such as “not recent,” “stale evidence,” or “limited recognition beyond the initial achievement.” Yet when read carefully, the core message of the NOID is that the agency believes the acclaim was not maintained over time. The issue is continuity of recognition, not recency of accomplishment.
Common Denial Language in Final Merits Reviews
Many of the recurring phrases in Final Merits denials or NOIDs reveal how adjudicators are applying the standard. Officers frequently describe the record as lacking continuing national or international recognition, ongoing impact, or influence that has elevated the field. These terms appear repeatedly in EB-1A decisions and signal that the government believes the applicant’s achievements were limited in scope or duration. When a denial states that the petitioner has not shown sustained acclaim, it almost always means the officer was not satisfied that the accomplishments continued to have influence or value beyond the time they were first recognized.
Another frequent line of reasoning focuses on the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence. USCIS will often characterize awards, publications, or judging roles as routine or limited in prestige, and then conclude that the petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional standing in the field. Some officers attempt to frame the denial in terms of timing by asserting that the achievements were not recent or were “stale.” Although this wording can create the impression that there is a recency requirement, that is not accurate. There is no rule in the law or regulations that the evidence must be from a specific timeframe. What the agency is really pointing to is the absence of evidence showing continued significance or ongoing influence.
Another common phrase in Final Merits denials is that the petitioner has not shown that they are one of a small percentage at the very top of the field. This comes directly from the statutory standard and reflects USCIS’s core concern: whether the evidence shows distinction among top peers. This is why the Final Merits Determination must connect the dots by explaining why the evidence is not just significant in isolation but collectively demonstrates elite standing.
The Difference Between Criteria and Final Merits
The threshold criteria are only the starting point. USCIS evaluates each criterion independently, but the Final Merits Determination asks whether, when all evidence is examined together, the record truly supports the extraordinary ability standard. A petitioner can meet three or even more criteria and still fail Final Merits if the achievements are routine, local, limited, or short lived. On the other hand, a petitioner with fewer types of evidence but stronger proof of lasting influence and broad recognition may satisfy the extraordinary ability standard. The Final Merits stage is specifically designed to separate routine professionals from those who have genuinely reached the very top of their field.
The Practical Impact on Petition Strategy
The Final Merits Determination fundamentally changes how a case should be presented. The emphasis should shift from simply collecting and categorizing evidence into the ten criteria, to strategically explaining how the evidence forms a cohesive record of sustained national or international acclaim. Practitioners should connect the dots between older and newer achievements, explain why the accomplishments matter, and demonstrate the broader significance and continued impact. It also becomes important to show that the beneficiary is professionally positioned to continue to make contributions to the field through their extraordinary ability. USCIS wants to see not only that the applicant has achieved acclaim in the past, but that they remain at a level in the field where their skills, innovations, and influence are still driving future work. The strongest EB-1A petitions do not simply present evidence but explain why that evidence proves sustained acclaim, exceptional standing, and the ability to continue making those contributions going forward.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
